You ask whether certain information is subject to required public disclosure under
chapter 552 of the Government Code. Your request was assigned ID# 138667.

The City of Corpus Christi (the "city") received a written request for "information
concerning the complaint against me for sexual harassment," including "all written
documentation (letters, notes, memos, etc.) that may have been received or generated . . . in
the course of your investigation of the complaint." You state that the city has released to the
requestor the "Fact Finding Report on Sexual Harassment Allegations," dated June 5, 2000,
with the names of the harassment victim and witnesses redacted. You contend that the
redacted information and all other documents coming within the ambit of the request are
excepted from public disclosure pursuant to section 552.101 of the Government Code in
conjunction with the common law right of privacy.

Section 552.101 of the Government Code protects from public disclosure information
coming within the common law right of privacy. Industrial Found. v. Texas Indus. Accident
Bd., 540 S.W.2d 668, 683-85 (Tex. 1976) (common law privacy protects information that
is highly intimate or embarrassing, such that its release would be highly objectionable to a
reasonable person, and is of no legitimate concern to the public). In Morales v. Ellen, 840
S.W.2d 519 (Tex. App.--El Paso 1992, writ denied), the court addressed the applicability of
the common law privacy doctrine to files of an investigation of allegations of sexual
harassment. The investigatory files at issue in Ellen contained individual witness and victim
statements, an affidavit given by the individual accused of the misconduct in response to the
allegations, and the conclusions of the board of inquiry that conducted the investigation.

The court held that the names of witnesses and their detailed affidavits regarding allegations
of sexual harassment are exactly the types of information specifically excluded from
disclosure under the privacy doctrine as described in Industrial Foundation. Ellen, 840 S.W.2d at 525. However, the court ordered the release of the affidavit of the person under investigation. Id. The Ellen court also ordered the disclosure of the summary of the investigation with the identities of the victims and witnesses deleted from the documents, noting that the public interest in the matter was sufficiently served by disclosure of such
documents and that in that particular instance "the public [did] not possess a legitimate
interest in the identities of the individual witnesses, nor the details of their personal
statements." Id.

In this instance, we do not believe that the information regarding the sexual harassment
investigation contained in the June 5, 2000 memorandum constitutes an adequate summary
of that investigation by itself. Consequently, the city must also release the June 8, 2000
memorandum, with the identity of the victim redacted. Additionally, we conclude that the
city must release the handwritten notes taken from the interview of the accused harasser with
the victim's and witnesses' identities redacted. However, in accordance with Ellen, the city
must withhold all of the remaining information at issue pursuant to section 552.101 of the
Government Code in conjunction with the common law right of privacy.

This letter ruling is limited to the particular records at issue in this request and limited to the
facts as presented to us; therefore, this ruling must not be relied upon as a previous
determination regarding any other records or any other circumstances.

This ruling triggers important deadlines regarding the rights and responsibilities of the
governmental body and of the requestor. For example, governmental bodies are prohibited
from asking the attorney general to reconsider this ruling. Gov't Code § 552.301(f). If the
governmental body wants to challenge this ruling, the governmental body must appeal by
filing suit in Travis County within 30 calendar days. Id. § 552.324(b). In order to get the full
benefit of such an appeal, the governmental body must file suit within 10 calendar days. Id.
§ 552.353(b)(3), (c). If the governmental body does not appeal this ruling and the
governmental body does not comply with it, then both the requestor and the attorney general
have the right to file suit against the governmental body to enforce this ruling.
Id. § 552.321(a).

If this ruling requires the governmental body to release all or part of the requested
information, the governmental body is responsible for taking the next step. Based on the
statute, the attorney general expects that, within 10 calendar days of this ruling, the
governmental body will do one of the following three things: 1) release the public records;
2) notify the requestor of the exact day, time, and place that copies of the records will be
provided or that the records can be inspected; or 3) notify the requestor of the governmental
body's intent to challenge this letter ruling in court. If the governmental body fails to do one
of these three things within 10 calendar days of this ruling, then the requestor should report
that failure to the attorney general's Open Government Hotline, toll free, at 877/673-6839.
The requestor may also file a complaint with the district or county attorney. Id. § 552.3215(e).

If this ruling requires or permits the governmental body to withhold all or some of the
requested information, the requestor can appeal that decision by suing the governmental
body. Id. § 552.321(a); Texas Department of Public Safety v. Gilbreath, 842 S.W.2d 408,411 (Tex. App.--Austin 1992, no writ).

If the governmental body, the requestor, or any other person has questions or comments
about this ruling, they may contact our office. Although there is no statutory deadline for
contacting us, the attorney general prefers to receive any comments within 10 calendar days
of the date of this ruling.